Supreme Court Rules Against Trump’s Tariffs

[Oldcarpy2]

So you are denying that the USA was getting smoked on most trade deals before the Trump tariffs?

As far as chiming in about it without hearing what he had to say, who gives a fuck?

I don't really care what he had to say, I saw the headline that the SC stopped his tariffs, that is enough to make a comment.

Yep.  Thank you for your uninformed opinion.

If you don't care what he had to say, I think that says it all.

What he said was an incoherent unhinged rant.

Suggest that you listen to it before posting further.

[CriticalStinker]

So you are denying that the USA was getting smoked on most trade deals before the Trump tariffs?

As far as chiming in about it without hearing what he had to say, who gives a fuck?

I don't really care what he had to say, I saw the headline that the SC stopped his tariffs, that is enough to make a comment.

If he had targeted his tariffs, this probably wouldn’t have happened.

We had a trade surplus in Australia, still hit them with tariffs.

Some countries had 0% tariffs on US goods, and we hit them with tariffs because they charged a VAT, which is no different than sales tax, and applied on all goods, not just US.

There is a trade imbalance, it does need to be addressed. What he did was shooting from the hip without a plan. We didn’t reshore production, trade deficit went up in 2026, and the US dollar lost 10% of its purchasing power while prices didn’t go down.

Why would companies pay the money to change all their operations when everyone saw this coming? The tariffs were unconstitutional, people who can read didn’t need SCOTUS to confirm that, but here we are and people are still upset.

[Oldcarpy2]

RazorV66 wrote:

"You are taking your self imposed role as the DI police too seriously, people can post at will here."

No.  I just like to Deny Ignorance.

Like when posters chime in about stuff they can't be bothered to actually listen to.

[RazorV66]

If he had targeted his tariffs, this probably wouldn’t have happened.

We had a trade surplus in Australia, still hit them with tariffs.

Some countries had 0% tariffs on US goods, and we hit them with tariffs because they charged a VAT, which is no different than sales tax, and applied on all goods, not just US.

There is a trade imbalance, it does need to be addressed. What he did was shooting from the hip without a plan. We didn’t reshore production, trade deficit went up in 2026, and the US dollar lost 10% of its purchasing power while prices didn’t go down.

Why would companies pay the money to change all their operations when everyone saw this coming? The tariffs were unconstitutional, people who can read didn’t need SCOTUS to confirm that, but here we are and people are still upset.

Hey I never said his tariffs were the correct route but yet we are back to square one.

The hyperventilating over the tariffs were not completely justified IMO.

Name 5 things that you purchase in every day life that were significantly more expensive after the tariffs were imposed.

I never saw anything.

As far as Trump going off the rails over it, did you guys expect anything less? 

[RazorV66]

RazorV66 wrote:

"You are taking your self imposed role as the DI police too seriously, people can post at will here."

No.  I just like to Deny Ignorance.

Like when posters chime in about stuff they can't be bothered to actually listen to.

The f--king actual thread title is...."The Supreme Court rules against Trump's Tariffs"

Not "Trump has a hissy fit"

I've said it 3 times that I dont care what he said about the ruling, I was commenting on the ruling itself. 

Very distinct difference, stop pushing your bullshit on people about post details.

[CriticalStinker]

Hey I never said his tariffs were the correct route but yet we are back to square one.

The hyperventilating over the tariffs were not completely justified IMO.

Name 5 things that you purchase in every day life that were significantly more expensive after the tariffs were imposed.

I never saw anything.

As far as Trump going off the rails over it, did you guys expect anything less? 

You must not grocery shop. Meat, coffee, and a lot of items saw increased costs. Some things weren’t as visible because they decreased the volume being sold (shrinkflation).

The company I work for is a distributor. We deal solely business to business, but I can assure you all tariffs we incurred were passed directly to the end user.

Even if we said prices didn’t go up, they certainly didn’t go down. So what was the point of all of it? We still got 2.25t more in debt last year, prices didn’t go down, and 10% or more lost on purchasing power for the USD. So I’m struggling to see how this was any sort of a win.

[Oldcarpy2]

The f----- actual thread title is...."The Supreme Court rules against Trump's Tariffs"

Not "Trump has a hissy fit"

I've said it 3 times that I dont care what he said about the ruling, I was commenting on the ruling itself. 

Very distinct difference, stop pushing your bullshit on people about post details.

You wrote:

'You are taking your self imposed role as the DI police too seriously, people can post at will here."

So can I, Chuck.

[putnam6]

Eli Brooks
@elibrooks0
·
3h
When Biden ignored the court ruling and pursued his agenda, the media called him brave. Now, when Trump is looking for alternative legal avenues to save American workers, why are they shouting unconstitutional? There should be a limit to double standards.

So, can Trump install these new tariffs, and when do they go in effect?

This should mean we will have no disruption or increases through Spring and Summer for our business, and we will see what happens in the fall 
 

Yes, President Trump can (and has announced he will) impose these new tariffs using existing statutory authorities, bypassing the Supreme Court's recent ruling that struck down his broader use of emergency powers (likely under IEEPA) for sweeping global tariffs.


Here's the breakdown based on his February 20, 2026, announcement:

• Section 232 (national security tariffs) and existing Section 301 (unfair trade practices tariffs): Trump declared these remain in full force and effect immediately (effective as of his statement on February 20, 2026). These were not overturned by the Supreme Court ruling, so they continue without interruption.

This includes things like steel/aluminum duties and China-specific tariffs from prior actions.


• New 10% global tariff under Section 122 (of the Trade Act of 1974): This is a temporary "import surcharge" authority to address large balance-of-payments deficits.

Trump stated he would sign an executive order today (February 20, 2026) to impose this additional 10% tariff "over and above" existing ones.

• Effective date: Trump indicated it would start in a matter of days, specifically saying something along the lines of "starting effectively... I think it’s three days from now." Reports confirm the executive order was expected to be signed on February 20, with implementation likely within days (e.g., potentially February 23, 2026, or shortly after publication in the Federal Register). Exact precise start date would be specified in the final order, but it's designed for quick effect.

• Key limits: This Section 122 authority is temporary—up to 150 days max (unless Congress extends it)—and capped at 15% (he's using 10%). It's never been used before for tariffs, so this is a novel workaround, but it's explicitly allowed under the law for short-term balance-of-payments fixes.

This move is a direct response to the Supreme Court's decision earlier that day, with the administration framing it as "Plan B" to maintain tariff revenue while pursuing longer-term options (like new Section 301 investigations). Trading partners may challenge it legally or retaliate, and it could raise costs for importers/consumers in the short term.
For the absolute latest details (e.g., if the order was signed and the exact effective date), check official sources like the White House or Federal Register, as things moved fast on February 20.

[cherokeetroy]

You must not grocery shop. Meat, coffee, and a lot of items saw increased costs. Some things weren’t as visible because they decreased the volume being sold (shrinkflation).

The company I work for is a distributor. We deal solely business to business, but I can assure you all tariffs we incurred were passed directly to the end user.

Even if we said prices didn’t go up, they certainly didn’t go down. So what was the point of all of it? We still got 2.25t more in debt last year, prices didn’t go down, and 10% or more lost on purchasing power for the USD. So I’m struggling to see how this was any sort of a win.

US dollar has lost 96% of its purchasing power since 1913

Trump’s Mar a logo Accord strategy is to deliberately devalue it even more

[RazorV66]

You must not grocery shop. Meat, coffee, and a lot of items saw increased costs. Some things weren’t as visible because they decreased the volume being sold (shrinkflation).

I never saw a significant increase in meat, coffee or anything else I purchase on a weekly basis.

In fact, I've seen many prices decrease, it might benefit people to shop around for some items I guess.

Fluctuations of 25-50 cents doesn't affect me, not even by $1 really, but I guess it could to some people on a strict budget.